COMMISSION ON THE POWERS AND ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY FOR WALES

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS

of the

EVIDENCE OF:

CHAIR OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT & HOUSING COMMITTEE OF THE

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY FOR WALES,

GWENDA THOMAS

held at

National Museum & Gallery, Cardiff

on

6^TH December 2002

Proceedings

LORD RICHARD: Thank you very much for coming.

GWENDA THOMAS: My pleasure.

LORD RICHARD: Would you be kind enough for the sake of the record to identify yourself and your colleague so we have it on the transcript?

GWENDA THOMAS: I am Gwenda Thomas, Assembly Member for Neath, and I chair the Local Government and Housing Committee for the National Assembly for Wales. I have with me Roger Chaffey, the Clerk to the Committee.

LORD RICHARD: Thank you. What we have done with other people is asked them to speak for perhaps five minutes or so on how they see the function, what they do, and then perhaps we can explore the different issues as they come up.

GWENDA THOMAS: Yes, indeed. Thank you. The remit of the Committee is based on the responsibility of the Minister for Finance, Local Government and Communities, Edwina Hart. It covers local government policy and finance issues, housing, community regeneration and crime reduction. The remit does not include Edwina Hart's responsibilities as Finance Minister. Within its field the Committee is expected to contribute to policy development, review the implementation of policy, advise on proposed legislation affecting Wales and contribute to the process of allocating the Assembly's budget.

On policy development, the Committee has carried out two policy reviews. The first in 2000-2001 was of housing stock transfer and the second in 2001-2 of community regeneration. Each review resulted in a report to the Minister that was debated in Plenary. The Minister responded to the recommendations made. The Minister's response to the housing stock transfer report was fairly positive; she accepted many of the recommendations made. There were, however, three recommendations which she could not implement: to change the rules governing local government borrowing; to allow for the suspension of the transfer levy beyond 2005; and to make financial provision available for one-off payments to allow authorities to redeem any overhanging debt. The Minister could only make representations to Whitehall on these issues.

The Minister was able to accept all the recommendations in the report of community regeneration.

On proposed legislation, the Committee has not been asked to scrutinise any draft subordinate legislation. It is, however, given the opportunity to comment on the timetable of forthcoming legislation within its remit. An up to date timetable is included with each of the Minister's monthly written reports. The Minister advises on progress during various stages of the development of secondary legislation within the Committee's area of responsibility.

On reviewing policy for implementation, in other words scrutiny, the Committee scrutinises the Minister for Finance, Local Government and Communities through her fortnightly reports to Committee and the various policy initiatives she regularly brings to the Committee as part of its normal business. The fortnightly reports continue to be alternatively provided, oral and written, as agreed by the Committee. The Minister's annual budget proposals are considered and commented on first as a consideration paper, then as an issues paper in the summer term, and in final draft form in the autumn.

Finally, on review of Assembly sponsored public bodies, there are few Assembly public bodies within the Committee's remit. The Committee traditionally examines the annual report and accounts of the Local Government Boundary Commission in the autumn term.

Thank you.

LORD RICHARD: Thank you very much. If I could ask you one or two factual questions first, in your paragraph 3 you talk about the Minister's response to the housing stock transfer report. That was a report prepared by your Committee, was it?

GWENDA THOMAS: Yes.

LORD RICHARD: With her involvement in the preparation of the report?

GWENDA THOMAS: Yes - well, Edwina Hart as Minister with responsibility for the remit of the Local Government and Housing Committee as far as policy reviews are concerned elects not to be present in Committee.

LORD RICHARD: I see. So she was not there?

GWENDA THOMAS: Yes. She will leave the Committee when the Committee considers evidence from any people called to give it on policy reviews, and I think that is helpful. My view is that by doing that, the Committee is free to make recommendations and it does not have to anticipate any response of the Minister. I think that is right and proper and that the response should come following the presentation to Plenary. I think there is less blurring of the issues that way.

LORD RICHARD: So as far as your Committee is concerned, your role in policy review and that of the Minister are separate?

GWENDA THOMAS: As far as policy review is concerned, yes, and that is very much the view of the Committee and of course the choice of the Minister as well.

LORD RICHARD: So that, as far as your Committee is concerned, you do not need her in the Committee when you are doing policy reviews?

GWENDA THOMAS: No.

LORD RICHARD: Scrutiny is another matter, we will come on to that later on, and the procedure you adopt is that the Committee decides what it wants to look at and what line it wants to take and what policy it thinks the Assembly should take, and that is put in the form of a report and presented to the Plenary, and the Minister comments on it at the Plenary stage, not at the Committee stage?

GWENDA THOMAS: Yes. She responds to the recommendations made after the Plenary has debated it, and I think she is required to do that within a time limit.

LORD RICHARD: To somebody who has been in Westminster that is a much more comprehensible structure than having a Minister in Committee participating in policy review.

GWENDA THOMAS: My personal view is that it might defeat the object of the policy review in any case.

LORD RICHARD: I think I would tend to agree with that. You say that she accepted things that she could not implement. That is presumably because she has not the powers?

GWENDA THOMAS: Of the three I have mentioned, yes, that was the reason. Of course, some of the recommendations on housing stock transfer had resource implications as well, so I would think it is a mix of the constrictions of the devolution settlement and also the availability of resources.

LORD RICHARD: But primarily it is the fact that the devolution settlement is a restrictive one as far as basic legislation is concerned?

GWENDA THOMAS: This is a personal view but it can be, yes.

LORD RICHARD: I see.

TED ROWLANDS: In the three issues that you identified as outside the powers, do you know whether in the case of Scotland these three powers exist in belonging to the Scottish Executive?

GWENDA THOMAS: I am not certain, no, but I would think that on the revenue implications for local government there would be more freedom in Scotland to decide upon those issues - especially on the overhanging debt, I would think.

PETER PRICE: You mentioned on the issue of the Minister's response a moment ago that she had to respond after the Plenary debate and within a time limit. Does that mean that, when you first debate the report, the Minister does not respond at that time: she presents her response later?

GWENDA THOMAS: Yes. That is the position.

PETER PRICE: Is that in the form of another debate in Plenary, or she comes to the Committee, or in writing or what?

GWENDA THOMAS: A written response to the recommendations of the Committee.

PETER PRICE: How do you then pursue it?

GWENDA THOMAS: That response is then considered by the Committee and in the case of the most recent one, the community regeneration, then all of the recommendations of the Committee were accepted, and indeed some have already been implemented.

LORD RICHARD: But you do not consider it with her there, do you? When you consider her written report, is the Minister present?

GWENDA THOMAS: Yes. I think that is useful as well because there can be scrutiny of the response to the recommendations as well and the policy review then is allowed to go full circle.

PETER PRICE: In terms of policy formation, you have referred to these two policy reviews. In what other ways do you contribute to the formation of policy?

GWENDA THOMAS: I think we have taken quite a positive role in policy development in that we look at issues, and these can be spread across quite a few issues such as building practices, energy efficiency, capacity building within communities, and the way we do that is to ask people to attend Committee from the public, voluntary and business sectors in order that Committee can take evidence and from that process to try and influence the Minister as to what the Committee thinks should be the way forward. An example of that is the interest the Committee took in lifetime homes, where we have had the building industry in and talked about the positive aspects about building lifetime homes, and looking at how that, in itself, can possibly save money in the future. If we build houses with doors that are wide enough with ramps instead of steps, then I think that is a very positive way of looking at how we improve life and the quality of it.

PETER PRICE: And is the Minister present during those discussions?

GWENDA THOMAS: Yes.

PETER PRICE: And what product is there from them? Is it a written report on that issue or the minutes of the meeting alone?

GWENDA THOMAS: No. The Minister will be there, and would usually present the report in the first instance. Then the issue is opened up to all of the members of the Committee after the presentation is made, of course. Then, whatever the views of the Committee and the requirements, be it a request for a written response from the Minister --

PETER PRICE: Are you talking about when you are hearing evidence, and exploring in the way you have just described, at the end of the process of hearing these various people who come from outside bodies, the Minister hears all of that with you, is that right?

GWENDA THOMAS: Yes.

PETER PRICE: Do you then formulate a written report, or is it just recorded in the minutes? How do you crystallise what the Committee's views are?

GWENDA THOMAS: It is recorded in the minutes but also, if the Committee is of a view that the Minister should provide information following that evidence taking, then there will be letters sent to the Minister in my name as chair of the Committee requesting that information and there can be very many requests. In November alone the Minister responded to 15 requests for information from the Committee. That is then provided through me in letter form and circulated by Roger to all of the members of the Committee, and of course if any member wishes to come back, even on the responses or on the information, that can be allowed to take place as well.

VIVIENNE SUGAR: Can we stay with this for a moment? Is there any difficulty about the fact that the relationship that you have with your Minister is different to the way that other Committee chairs and Ministers operate, because we have heard that the Ministers are present on all occasions and participate in the policy review discussions and so on, and I am trying to imagine, if the Environment Committee wanted to consult your Committee about a piece of work it was doing on the availability of land for housing in Wales, or if the Health Committee wanted your views on the implications of housing of the older people strategy, presumably if you have a joint meeting with those other committees their Ministers would be there for that policy review discussion but the Minister for Local Government would not be. Have I got that right?

GWENDA THOMAS: That is the case, yes, and I still think there are positive aspects to the Minister not being there but, on the issue of joint meetings with other committees, this is one of the things that I wanted to say to the Commission because I do feel in my experience that this is an issue, and I feel that we need to develop a more open strategy, if you like, for Ministers, when we deal with the cross-committee issues within ministerial portfolios. One of the issues that has struck me very strongly is the issue of the acceptance by the Westminster Parliament of major reports, for example, and I am thinking particularly of the Waterhouse report which was presented and accepted by the Westminster Parliament. I am not clear in my mind as to how the responsibilities that the Westminster Parliament accepts, by accepting a report of that nature, filter down to the Assembly because being a devolved administration I would think that the responsibility would be there for the National Assembly for Wales as well.

SIR MICHAEL WHEELER-BOOTH: Could you just say what the Waterhouse's report subject matter was? It was on what matter?

GWENDA THOMAS: On child abuse in North Wales, a very important on-going issue.

SIR MICHAEL WHEELER-BOOTH: That was done by a lawyer, was it not?

TED ROWLANDS: It pre dated devolution.

SIR MICHAEL WHEELER-BOOTH: It was not in a sense a product of your Committee, was it?

GWENDA THOMAS: No, but does it need to be a consideration of my Committee?

SIR MICHAEL WHEELER-BOOTH: No.

LORD RICHARD: But a report was made to Westminster, was it not? It had been set up by Westminster?

GWENDA THOMAS: It was, yes, but being that the National Assembly for Wales has devolved responsibility for local government, for social services, for health, then how do we ensure that we recognise and identify the cross-portfolio issues that arise from it? For example, four of the recommendations of Waterhouse are directly aimed at local government; the others would be social services for which local government has a responsibility, so how do we ensure and participate in that process in ensuring that there is implementation of these recommendations in Neath Port Talbot, for example, and I think the value of the report would only become a matter that would improve the protection of children if it does filter down to the local authorities. So I think there is an issue there.

TED ROWLANDS: In this post devolution system - God forbid a scandal of that kind arose which needed a full inquiry - but would it not be the Assembly which ordered it and the report delivered to the Assembly? I do not think Westminster would be involved at all in that process in the future.

GWENDA THOMAS: I am wondering about that, because the other thing that I wanted to mention was the judicial review procedure, and this week we have had a successful outcome to a judicial review brought by the Howard League for Penal Reform, for example, which calls on the government now to implement the Children's Act within prisons in Wales, and to the best of my understanding that is going to be implemented through social services departments, so how do we ensure who tells the Assembly, "The judicial review has been successful and it has now an implication for you as a devolved administration, being that you have responsibility for social services"? How do we ensure now, for example, that the Children's Act is implemented in Cardiff or Swansea prisons?

VIVIENNE SUGAR: Presumably the Social Services Inspector for Wales would be advising the Minister on whatever action is necessary and the Minister would come to the Committee and report on what she was proposing to do?

GWENDA THOMAS: I would think so, but I do think that there is a policy development role there for Committees and that if it was felt by a member of the Committee, or indeed the chair of the Committee, that it would help for the Committee to discuss that, then I think there might be a lack of clarity in procedural issues for that to happen.

The other issue that has crossed my mind and in my experience has been important is the adoption of conventions by the Westminster Parliament. Some of these have been post devolution, some pre, such as the United Nations Convention on the rights of the child. We have Conventions on Human Rights and we have seen within the Standards Committee a debate on freemasonry, for example, where we were receiving advice on the Human Rights Act and I cannot say that I am clear in my mind that there are clear enough procedures in place to allow the Assembly to understand the implications of conventions. So I do think that these are the matters that have certainly had an effect on my thinking and in my experience, if you are talking about the delivery of services, talking about the responsibilities and how we deliver them, then we need I think this extra clarity on issues such as these.

LORD RICHARD: Would you not see it as the Minister's responsibility to bring this to the Committee and say, "Look, there is a thing like the UN Convention on the rights of the child"?

GWENDA THOMAS: I think we need to know what the link is between the Westminster legislation and the National Assembly for Wales and I am not clear in my mind as to how these kinds of issues - if you call them that - are aside from primary and secondary legislation, but which are nonetheless very important indeed in my view.

LORD RICHARD: One of the problems is that it is only the United Kingdom that is the member of the UN or the European Union or what-have-you and therefore the constituent parts of the United Kingdom have to play their part by persuading the United Kingdom to take a particular line.

GWENDA THOMAS: I think so, and during the debates in Westminster on the acceptance of these issues, conventions or judicial reviews, I think it would be fairly helpful for Wales to have an input at that point, just as it would be helpful to have an input at the draft stage of a Bill, or even before the draft stage of the Bill.

LORD RICHARD: But do you see your Committee trying to have that input, or the Minister?

GWENDA THOMAS: I do. I think it could be helpful if we are given a timetable of secondary legislation by the Minister and I then ask any Committee member who might want to look at any of these issues in detail to say so. It is not a thing that has been taken up as much as it should be, I do not think, but that has to do not with the lack of will but with the time restrictions, and even the availability of members. To do that properly then probably the Committee should be meeting every week at least.

SIR MICHAEL WHEELER-BOOTH: You are going into new things that the Committee could do, but going back to your original paper you have these two important reviews on housing stock transfer and community regeneration. Could you tell us what the key conclusions were of these two reviews?

GWENDA THOMAS: In the housing stock transfer, the very first recommendation was that local government should be given the opportunity to keep housing within the public sector. That was the very first recommendation. Of course, that was one recommendation that was not within the powers of the Assembly to grant to local government, so having realised that that was the issue during the course of the policy review, there were other recommendations which moved away from that. Nevertheless, within the report, that was the very main concern of the Committee.

SIR MICHAEL WHEELER-BOOTH: But what were the recommendations on that particular review that were within your purview and that could or could not, or might or might not, have been implemented?

GWENDA THOMAS: One of the main ones I would think would be the model used for housing stock transfer. There was authority in Wales to introduce different kinds of housing stock transfer - arm's length companies, for example, or transfer to housing associations. The very interesting one that arose and I believe it is only in Wales was the community mutual which grew out of the co-operative model, and that was widely consulted upon and has become a model that the Minister has been able to support, and so have the Committee members. So there are different ways of transferring housing stock and within its remit the Committee considered those.

SIR MICHAEL WHEELER-BOOTH: What about the second one, community regeneration?

GWENDA THOMAS: That is a very important issue and, of course, we have had the very excellent initiative of Communities First, for example, and that has come, of course, from the Minister. But within that I think what the review showed was that there is not enough to have these excellent policies, not enough to have the resources put behind them, but we have to look at how communities themselves become involved in the process and this has been a very important aspect to come out of that report.

SIR MICHAEL WHEELER-BOOTH: Would it be possible to see the actual text of the report?

GWENDA THOMAS: Yes, indeed.

SIR MICHAEL WHEELER-BOOTH: And these were produced by you and your Committee, were they not, and not by the Minister?

GWENDA THOMAS: No, by the Committee.

SIR MICHAEL WHEELER-BOOTH: And I believe the government is under an obligation to respond to them?

GWENDA THOMAS: Yes, and the Minister has.

SIR MICHAEL WHEELER-BOOTH: So could you let us see the response also, trying to see how the process works, because we were given a list of all the Committee reports yesterday and I see that there are four produced by your Committee since it has been in existence, and these are the two - I get the impression - big ones.

GWENDA THOMAS: I think the Communities review one is a big one because it should, or hopefully will, have an effect on the way that communities regenerate themselves. What has become obvious from that is the complexity of the funding system, the need to co-ordinate funding streams, the need to build capacity and to say what we mean by that, the need to build within communities the ability to regenerate themselves by supplying training in the community as community development, and I think that is important.

What is important as well is to recognise and identify what is already there. That I believe was a very important remit for the Committee and you cannot just do that by sitting in Cardiff Bay. You need to get out to be able to see what happens on the ground, and you need to be able to relate that to what does face communities. I think that has been a very successful report indeed.

SIR MICHAEL WHEELER-BOOTH: Do you publish the evidence which substantiates the report?

GWENDA THOMAS: Yes, indeed.

SIR MICHAEL WHEELER-BOOTH: It would be very interesting to see these because it would make it, to me, become more alive and see how the process works. Obviously it takes two or three years to produce these; it has been a major piece of work, a major effort.

GWENDA THOMAS: I think so. It has also led to another phase because during the process of the policy review on community regeneration it became very obvious that we needed another review on this capacity building aspect of it, and that that needed to be a stand-alone review.

SIR MICHAEL WHEELER-BOOTH: Did you have a special adviser?

GWENDA THOMAS: Yes. I was going to come to that. The success of a review does depend on various matters. It is no good just asking questions; you have to be asking the right questions of the right people or groups and I think the role of a special adviser was very important in that - somebody who had the expertise to advise on that very issue, not that we were exclusively constrained to the advice of the special adviser. If there were members of the Committee that felt we needed to look at other groups, at other projects, then that was done but I think the fact that we had special advisers there did help the process along significantly.

TOM JONES: Yn dilyn o hynny, pan fyddwch chi’n defnyddio ymgynghorwyr arbenigol ac yn gwneud y datblygu arbenigol a’r datblygu cymunedol, fyddwch chi’n gofyn i arbenigwr y llywodraeth, eich Gweinidog arbenigol eich hun neu’r swyddogion polisi o fewn Llywodraeth y Cynulliad?

Interpretation:

Following on from that, when you are using the specialist advisers and carrying out the specialist development and community development, do you ask the government specialist, your own Minister specialist or the policy officers within the Assembly Government?

GWENDA THOMAS: Gallen ni fod wedi gwneud hynny ond dydw i ddim yn cofio a wnaeth ni ofyn mewn gwirionedd i ymgynghorwyr y llywodraeth ei hun. Fe wnaethon ni ymholiadau o fewn y sector cyhoeddus, o fewn llywodraeth leol, a phryd rydyn ni wedi gwneud hynny mae’r swyddogion wedi ymddangos mewn cyfarfodydd Pwyllgor i roi’r dystiolaeth rydyn ni wedi gofyn amdani, ond rwy’n credu mai’r peth mwyaf pwysig i fi oedd mynd allan a gofyn i bobl gyffredin, os galla i ddefnyddio’r term hwnnw, a theithio o gwmpas Cymru gyfan i ddeall beth oedd yn digwydd ar lawr gwlad, achos roedd cymaint o enghreifftiau o arfer da fel ei bod hi’n drueni mawr i ni beidio â bod yn defnyddio’r enghreifftiau hynny a’r wybodaeth honno. Felly roeddwn i’n credu mai’r peth mwyaf pwysig oedd siarad â’r bobl.

Interpretation:

We could have done so but I do not remember whether we did actually ask the government's own advisers. We did make inquiries within the public sector, within local government, and when we have done that officials have appeared in Committee meetings to provide the evidence that we have requested, but I think the most important thing for me was to go out and ask ordinary people, if I can use that term, and to travel around the whole of Wales to understand what was happening on the ground, because there are so many examples of good practice that it is a very great shame for us not to be using those examples and that information. So I thought that the most important thing was to speak to the people.

TOM JONES: Ond hefyd, er mwyn sgwario’r cylch, gallwn feddwl, byddai angen i chi wybod beth oedd cynlluniau cyfredol Llywodraeth y Cynulliad yn y meysydd hynny er mwyn i chi ddeall yn union beth roedd angen i chi ei argymell i wella polisi?

Interpretation:

But also, in order to square the circle I suppose, you would need to know what the current schemes of the Assembly Government were in these areas so you could understand exactly what you needed to recommend to improve policy?

GWENDA THOMAS: Byddai, yn bendant, a gallen ni wneud hynny achos byddai’r ymgynghorydd arbenigol yn holi ac yn rhoi cyngor i’r Pwyllgor ar beth oedd y sefyllfa gyfredol neu beth fyddai’r sefyllfa gyfredol ar y pryd o fewn y fframwaith deddfwriaethol. Ar ôl dweud hynny, serch hynny, yr hyn oedd yn bwysig i ni ei ddeall oedd beth roedden ni’n gallu ei wneud o fewn y fframwaith deddfwriaethol cyfredol – mae hynny’n gwbl bwysig. Efallai nad oedd angen i ni edrych ar syniadau newydd ar bob achlysur.

Interpretation:

Yes, certainly, and we could do that because the expert adviser would be questioning and giving advice to the Committee on what the current situation or what the current situation was at that time within the legislative framework. Having said that, however, what was important for us to understand was what we could do within the current legislative framework - that is vitally important. Maybe we did not need to look at new ideas on all occasions.

TOM JONES: Byddwn i wedi credu bod y rhan fwyaf o’r gwaith yn waith y gellid bod wedi ei wneud o fewn pwerau cyfredol y Cynulliad, ond yna a oes pethau eraill yn eich ymchwil a fyddai wedi gofyn am bwerau deddfwriaethol sylfaenol?

Interpretation:

I would have thought that most of that work was work that could have been done within the current Assembly powers, but then are there other things in your research that would have required primary legislative powers?

GWENDA THOMAS: Oes mae rhai, fel rydw i eisoes wedi sôn, lle byddai angen pwerau sylfaenol arnon ni ond o fewn y pwerau eilaidd sydd gennyn ni ar hyn o bryd mae hi wedi dod yn amlwg iawn, pan fyddwn ni’n trafod adfywio cymunedol, fod cymaint y gallwn ni ei wneud yn barod. Y cwestiwn yw ei bod hi wedi dod yn gymaint o ddryswch yn enwedig yn y ffordd y mae pobl yn gallu cael gafael ar wybodaeth am y cronfeydd sydd ar gael iddyn nhw, ac rydw i’n credu mai’r hyn yw’r peth mwyaf sydd wedi deillio o’r arolwg hwn.

Interpretation:

There are some, as I have mentioned already, where we would need primary powers but within the secondary powers that we currently have it has become very obvious that, when we are discussing community regeneration, there is so much we can do already. The question is that it has become such a confusion particularly in the way that people can access information about the funds available to them, and I think that is the greatest thing to have emanated from this review.

HUW VAUGHAN-THOMAS: Os galla i ddilyn ymlaen o hynny, gydag adfywiad cymunedol, cyhoeddodd y Comisiwn Cefn Gwlad adroddiad tua blwyddyn yn ôl yn cyfeirio at ddatblygiad cymunedau gwledig. Pa ddylanwad a gafodd hwn ar eich gwaith fel Pwyllgor ar gymunedau ledled Cymru? I ba raddau roeddech chi’n edrych ar ymchwil a oedd wedi ei wneud yn barod?

Interpretation:

If I could just follow on from that, with community regeneration, the Countryside Commission published a report about a year ago making reference to the development of rural communities. What influence did that have on your work as a Committee on communities throughout Wales? To what extent were you looking at research which had already been carried out?

GWENDA THOMAS: Fe wnaeth yr ymgynghorydd arbenigol edrych ar yr ymchwil oedd wedi ei gwneud ym mhob math o gymunedau, yn rhai gwledig neu drefol, af fe gymeron ni dystiolaeth gan grwpiau o fewn prosiectau’n rhedeg mewn ardaloedd gwledig ac roedd hynny’n bwysig dros ben. Er enghraifft, fe ymwelodd y Pwyllgor â Chapel Curig yng ngogledd Cymru a’r cynlluniau oedd yn mynd ymlaen yno a phwysigrwydd cydnabod pethau roedd y Comisiwn Coedwigaeth ac ati’n ei wneud yn croestorri ein gwaith ni a gallai hyrwyddo ein gwaith. Hefyd, yr hyn oedd yn bwysig o’r ffaith fod gennyn ni ymgynghorydd arbenigol oedd y gallai fe roi cyngor i’r Pwyllgor a sicrhau ein bod ni’n gofyn y cwestiynau iawn i bob un o’r gwahanol gyrff ledled Cymru mewn ardaloedd gwledig, ac roedd hynny’n eithriadol o bwysig i ni. Er enghraifft, fe glywson ni lawer am Swyddfeydd Post ac ati, ac rydyn ni’n awr wedi gweld bod hynny wedi cael ei drosglwyddo i’r Gweinidog ac mai hi wedi ymateb yn gadarnhaol i’r materion hynny. Tarddodd yr holl faterion hyn o’r adolygiad polisi a gynhalion ni.

Interpretation:

The expert adviser did look at research that had been carried out in all sorts of communities, be they rural or urban, and we did take evidence from groups within projects running in rural areas and that was vitally important. For example, the Committee visited Capel Curig in North Wales and the schemes that were going on there and the importance of acknowledging things that the Forestry Commission and so on were doing was cross-cutting to our work and could promote our work. Also, what was important from the fact that we did have an expert adviser was that he could advise the Committee and ensure that we were asking the right questions to all of the various bodies throughout Wales in rural areas, and that was exceptionally important to us. For example, we heard a great deal about Post Offices and so on, and we have now seen that that has been transferred to the Minister and that she has responded positively to those issues. All of these issues emanated from the policy review we conducted.

LORD RICHARD: Could I follow this up in a more general way? Obviously your Committee has to be selective about what it spends its time doing. Do you do that in conjunction with the Minister or do you do that totally separately?

GWENDA THOMAS: The setting, agenda and the content of it is a matter for me but I think it is always helpful to do it in conjunction with the Minister, and the Committee is happy with that. I do also circulate the Committee members with the copies of that agenda. I really think it should be a partnership.

LORD RICHARD: The point I am getting at is this: If you as the Committee wanted to look at rural regeneration and the Minister said, "No, do not look at that, do something else" --

GWENDA THOMAS: -- Then the Committee would do it.

LORD RICHARD: Has that happened?

GWENDA THOMAS: No, I do not think we have had any contentious issues for the agenda. I cannot bring any to mind, but to go back to Waterhouse and my view that we needed to explore that cross-portfolio, I think there was a bit of putting one's foot down to ensure that the Committee had an input into that very important aspect, and it was obviously a thing that concerned the Committee and it did, in the end, mean that the Minister for Health and Social Services came to the Local Government and Housing Committee to be scrutinised on that very issue, and I think it was very helpful indeed. I do not think we have heard enough about the importance of that having happened.

LORD RICHARD: You see, the point I am really getting at which has emerged from various other Committee chairmen is that the relationship between the Minister and the Committee in some ways is a very cosy one, and I do not know whether it is too cosy!

GWENDA THOMAS: I do not think "cosy" is the right word because certainly, as chair, I would see it as my absolute responsibility to reflect the views of each and every member of that Committee, and I think that is done. The fact that there is a good working relationship I think can enhance the process, and that does not in any way mean that it is "cosy", I do not think.

LAURA McALLISTER: Can you tell us a little bit more about the internal relationships between the Committee members themselves and yourself as Chair and the Minister? We heard yesterday from another Subject Committee Chair who said that most of the decision-making operated on a fairly consensual basis, and she told us quite proudly they had only had five votes in the time she had been Chair. I wonder whether you vote more frequently than that in your own Committee?

GWENDA THOMAS: No, we do not.

LAURA McALLISTER: Would you say that your decision-making process within the committee is consensual as a whole, or is there tension between, for example, the opposition parties and the Welsh Assembly Government representatives in the committee itself?

GWENDA THOMAS: I do not know how to deal with the word "tension". There is certainly stringent scrutiny of the Minister, both from members of my own party and the opposition, and I think that is right and proper. Perhaps the Committee has benefited from the fact that each and every member, and I think this was inadvertently done, has a background in local government.

ROGER CHAFFEY: Except the Minister.

GWENDA THOMAS: Yes, of course. The members of the Committee apart from the Minister all had a background in local government and I think that understanding of the process has helped, but certainly the opposition is quite able to deal with what they would see as concerns and much of the information requested from the Minister is requested from opposition members. As I have explained previously, that does come then by letter form and I think much of the openness of the Committee hinges on the issue of that open and willing passage of information.

LAURA McALLISTER: Can you tell us a bit about the role of the Deputy Minister? We have heard from other sources in your Committee that the Deputy Minister is more prominent than in some of the other Committees, and we have also heard some criticism of the clarity of his role in participation in the Committee, whether it is fair or not. Is there any issue as to when he might be speaking as a Deputy Minister for the Welsh Assembly Government and when he would be speaking as an ordinary member of the Committee?

GWENDA THOMAS: No. In fairness to the Deputy Minister he makes that clear, and does say when he is speaking as an Assembly member and when as a Deputy Minister, and I think he has played a useful role as Deputy Minister, for example, in chairing the Homelessness Commission. He was asked by the Minister to chair that and that Commission did a very useful piece of work I think under the Chairmanship of the Deputy Minister. I think you do get quite a bit of political play within the Committee as to how individual members see his role, but I would say that as Chair I have been satisfied that he has made it clear and has always specified in what capacity he is speaking, and I think that has been important indeed.

VIVIENNE SUGAR: Does that not contradict what you said earlier, though, about conducting policy reviews without the Minister there when you have the Deputy Minister there?

GWENDA THOMAS: No, because the Deputy Minister does not have to respond to the recommendations of the review. That would be entirely a matter for the Minister and the requirements of the Assembly quite clearly state that the Minister will respond to the recommendations of the Committee.

LAURA McALLISTER: The Deputy Minister has no statutory status anyway?

GWENDA THOMAS: No, and it is only the Minister that will respond to the recommendations.

SIR MICHAEL WHEELER-BOOTH: On this issue about the relations within the Committee, I see that at the moment, if the list is right, that you have four Labour, three Plaid, one Conservative and one Liberal Democrat. Up to the time before there was the Labour/Liberal Democrat accord, or whatever the right word is for it, there would have been five who were not with the Assembly government and four who were on the side of the government. When the accord took place, did that significantly change or modify relations within the Committee and the way it worked?

GWENDA THOMAS: No, I do not think so. The Committee is constituted in accordance with proportionality and that did not change with whatever happened within the Assembly generally between Labour and the Liberal Democrats. I do not think it affected the Committee's work at all.

TED ROWLANDS: Do you support the transfer of the primary legislative powers to the Assembly?

GWENDA THOMAS: Speaking personally I can see that it would be useful to have some transfer of primary legislative powers, yes.

TED ROWLANDS: We have to consider that issue but also consider the impact and consequences of such a transfer on the whole nature of the Committee's work, and you have been describing passionately and proudly the way you have done the policy reviews and the scrutiny - this dual mode. If you grant on to this committee structure a major additional function such as carrying on a major Local Government Bill and if you take an average Local Government Bill - big, large, sometimes complex, dense legislation - how do you think the whole committee structure can accommodate that responsibility, or will it in fact fundamentally change the whole way in which it works?

GWENDA THOMAS: I think it would fundamentally change. I think you would need probably more members to be able to take on the responsibility for all of that: you would certainly have to look at accommodation and the extent of it, because you would certainly need more staff, and certainly you would need the Committee meeting more often. That is a major issue.

TED ROWLANDS: So you would have to increase the membership of the Assembly. Would you then consider it necessary to, as it were, as Westminster does it, divorce the legislative process from the main committee structure and set up standing committees to look at the Bill, or as was suggested to us by the Presiding Officer and the Clerk to the Assembly yesterday, that somehow the existing committee structure could accommodate the legislative process?

GWENDA THOMAS: What I would see as a worry would be that the scrutiny process should never be subordinate, and I think there would have to be protection of the scrutiny role. To be fair we would have to look at the advantages and disadvantages of the present size of the Assembly because it does allow a disciplined focus on issues. I myself, however, would consider that perhaps a more clear separation of the scrutiny role to the legislative role would be helpful, and I do think that we need to be able to convince the public that scrutiny is, indeed, carried out to the proper extent and as openly as it possibly can be. I think it is important for the public to see that the Assembly is indeed answerable, and I can think of no better way to do it.

LORD RICHARD: But the way you are putting to us this morning your role as Chair of the Committee is not as a supporter of the Labour administration in the Assembly but as chairing a Committee of the Assembly with a degree of independence which almost transcends the party division, is that a fair way of putting it?

GWENDA THOMAS: No, I do not think so. I do not know what you mean by "independence".

LORD RICHARD: Independent in the sense of being unconnected with the government machine, if I can use Westminster terms; independent in the sense of not taking your orders from the government; independent in the sense of being prepared to look at things which the government may not want you to look at; independent in the sense of producing reports which are genuinely from the Committee and not influenced by the government; and also independent in the sense of scrutinising Ministers' behaviour and getting Ministers to respond to your reports. That on the face of it is a fair chunk of what I would call independence.

GWENDA THOMAS: I can see that there is room for the transfer of primary legislative powers but I can also see that there is an effect on the Assembly's ability to build policy surrounding the non devolved issues which I would think would always be non devolved, such as the benefits issue and all of that. That, of course, has its own resource problems. I think one of the issues with the Assembly learning grants, for example, was there was a fundamental issue on the benefits question there, and I think that identifying those issues, when we are building policy, is extremely important indeed and I think that will always be there. I am not at all saying that the Assembly should become independent but I do think that there is room to transfer some primary legislation.

LORD RICHARD: We are at cross purposes, I think. It is my fault for using the word "independent".

TED ROWLANDS: What I am getting at is that, once you take over primary legislative powers, the Westminster model may not be the one you wish to follow - indeed there is no reason why you should - but whatever model you have, once you get primary legislative power, there has to be a Minister responsible taking that Bill through the Assembly of Parliament, irrespective of the system you adopt, so the Minister will be taking this Bill through your Committee. In the Westminster case the Chair person of that Committee normally stands above the issues and is not part of the argument, but in your case as Chair of the Committee interested in the policy, obviously interested in the effectiveness or otherwise of the legislation, you and your Committee members would be scrutinising that Bill and you as Chairperson would not be there in the same capacity that you have in the case of Standing Committees in the House of Commons of being a neutral holder of procedure and upholding the procedure of the Committee, but as an active participant in the process of legislating. Would that whole process fundamentally alter the character and nature of Committees, or not?

GWENDA THOMAS: It would be of fundamental importance for the Chair of the Committee to have some independence in the process, and I think that is important and, at all costs, to be able to be unbiased during the Chairmanship of that Committee, and I think any Chair would be charged with that.

VIVIENNE SUGAR: But the legislation might be coming about because of earlier work that your Committee had done in developing a policy?

TED ROWLANDS: You might be party to it in a sense, or half party to it.

LORD RICHARD: Does that matter?

VIVIENNE SUGAR: I do not know. I am asking the question.

GWENDA THOMAS: I do not see anything wrong with that. I think from the point of view of public representation, and we have not touched on this so far, it is very important that members of whatever political party wherever they represent must not lose sight of that important aspect of their work - to bring in the views of their electorate, because that is after all what we are there for - and I can see nothing wrong in the Committee contributing to the policy development process and the scrutiny role, as long as there is a clear identification of the roles. That is what I would think needs to be dwelt upon probably by this Commission.

PETER PRICE: Listening to your views and those of other Committee Chairs, I am getting an impression of a very different atmosphere in the Committees from the Plenary. How true is that? The impression is that in the Committees there is a very consensual atmosphere of people working together in collaboration and although there are television cameras there and so on, in effect all of that is ignored and people are pulling together to a common end and that is what is driving the Committee, but when you are getting to the Plenary there is a sense of public debate and political clashes which dominates what goes on in Plenary. Is it a fair impression that there is quite a big contrast between the Committees and the Plenary in the internal dynamics?

GWENDA THOMAS: I think there is and I would see members of Committees having a responsibility, where they have been part of a debate in a Committee, to be consistent in their subsequent presentation to Plenary. Sometimes I do not think that is the case.

SIR MICHAEL WHEELER-BOOTH: You touched on the issue of secondary legislation earlier where perhaps more could be done. I note in the White Paper the procedures setting up the Assembly, and there is a reference under the heading "Subject Committees" where it says in paragraph 4.18: "Supported by their staff Subject Committees will be responsible for day to day work on such matters as developing policies" - we have talked about that - "monitoring the performance of public bodies" - you say you have none - "preparing secondary legislation and considering Bills going through Parliament". On secondary legislation what you say in your note is that the Committee has not been asked to scrutinise any draft subordinate legislation so in one case it seems to be an independent and pre role in that you would help to draft things and the policy that should be encapsulated, because after all the Assembly has the power to vary the terms of its secondary legislation from those adopted in England, while in your case it seems to be that you were only concerned to react if you were asked to do so and you never have been asked to do so from the time the Assembly was set up until now. That does seem to be a very different hymn sheet, or tune.

GWENDA THOMAS: We have not been asked to do so but I think the Committee could have contributed more to the secondary legislative process because I do believe that even individual members could ask to look at secondary legislation, and I think you will see that happening very shortly. Within the Assembly itself, however, there might be some confusion about this because the Committee could look at this, and I think should have, given more importance to this aspect. The Minister does have authority to ask Committees to look at the secondary legislation, and that could have happened within Committees before the Business Committee looked at the secondary legislation, and the Business Committee could have, when it came to consider it, referred it back to Committees, so I sometimes wonder whether there is enough interaction between the Committees that work on the legislative process, such as the Business Committee and the Process and the Legislation Committee, in order to identify what would be the best process for dealing with it. We are within the first step but we need to grow up significantly when considering these matters.

LORD RICHARD: Looking at secondary legislation is not one of the normal activities of your Committee?

GWENDA THOMAS: No, I would say that is fair, but I do not think that that is perhaps the way that it should be.

ROGER CHAFFEY: I think the Standing Orders have probably changed from the original White Paper and as far as the Committee's responsibility for legislation they now say to "advise" on proposed primary, secondary and European legislation rather than to "formulate" it.

SIR MICHAEL WHEELER-BOOTH: Absolutely, but it still strikes me as slightly surprising in a field as wide as local government and housing in which there is an enormous amount of secondary legislation over three years - a lot of which is very unimportant, very trivial and very boring but just occasionally there is an SI of real importance - and it seems to me rather odd, or surprising is perhaps a better word, that during the three years your Committee has not picked on just a few and, so to speak, gone for a major point on these very few instruments.

GWENDA THOMAS: I would agree but it has not been for lack of opportunity. There has been the opportunity for members to request that that should happen.

HUW VAUGHAN-THOMAS: Yn eich ymatebion fe godoch chi nifer o bwyntiau y byddech chi wedi hoffi i’r Pwyllgor fod wedi eu gwneud, ac fe siaradoch chi am ddeddfwriaeth eilaidd a chodi materion am sut y gallai pethau gael eu trin yn well rhwng y Pwyllgorau. I ba raddau rydych chi wedi codi’r rhain gyda’ch cyd Gadeiryddion? I ba raddau rydych chi’n cynnal dadl am y rhain? I ba raddau rydych chi’n ceisio newid y ffordd y mae’r Pwyllgor yn gweithio i ddod yn nes at y gobeithion sydd gennych chi?

Interpretation:

In your responses you have raised a number of points that you would have liked the Committee to have done, and you have talked about secondary legislation and raised issues about how things could be better dealt with between the Committees. To what extent have you raised these with your fellow Chairs? To what extent are you debating them? To what extent are you trying to change the way the Committee works to getting closer to the hopes you have?

GWENDA THOMAS: Rwy’n credu eich bod chi wedi cael papur gan banel y Cadeiryddion a chaiff hwn ei ddefnyddio fel fforwm defnyddiol i godi materion sy’n codi wrth redeg y Pwyllgorau o ddydd i ddydd. Mae mater archwilio deddfwriaeth wedi amrywio o Bwyllgor i Bwyllgor ac yn unol ag efallai’r hyn sydd wedi bod yn lles y cyhoedd, ac rydyn ni wedi cael graddau o archwilio o rai Gweinidogion yn yr hyn sydd wedi dod efallai yn adwaith i bryder y cyhoedd fel argyfwng y traed a’r genau a chnydau GM ac yn y blaen. Ond rwy’n credu y gallai gael ei gychwyn hefyd o bryderon y cyhoedd, ac rwy’n credu y byddai hynny’n iawn ac yn gywir hefyd.

Interpretation:

I think you have had a paper from the panel of Chairs and this is used as a useful forum to bring up matters that arise in the day-to-day running of the Committees. The question of scrutinising legislation has varied from Committee to Committee and in accordance with perhaps what has been public interest, and we have had degrees of scrutiny of some Ministers in perhaps what has become a reaction to public concern like the foot and mouth crisis and GM crops and so on. But I think it could be triggered as well from the concerns of the public, and I think that would be right and proper as well.

TED ROWLANDS: You identified for us the issues where you did not feel you had the powers in relation to your personal view and you mentioned judicial review and the adoption of conventions, but you identified one other real potential politically contentious issue which is the whole question of domestic water charges in the future and how that policy is going to evolve. Could you clarify for me where the responsibility the Assembly has for determining future water charges policy lies? If, for example, English government departments decide to go for mass metering but you would not want to do it, the Assembly would not want to do it and the Committee would not want to do it, how devolved is the power and responsibility for determining future water charges? I am referring to paragraph 8 of your report on constraints where you say you have been lobbying Whitehall, and this could become quite a contentious issue. Would you have the power to have a separate arrangement for a water system? Because this is a totally non devolved matter.

GWENDA THOMAS: You are talking about the matter of deciding how the water rates would be collected?

TED ROWLANDS: Yes.

GWENDA THOMAS: I think there are other examples as well, and I think this touches on the benefits issue because there are matters within the benefits issues that can be seen as --

TED ROWLANDS: But we have seen almost virtually no evidence from any Minister or any submissions so far that benefits should in any way be devolved, or are trying to be different in one part of the country to another. This is one where there seems to be a degree of universal consent in the United Kingdom.

GWENDA THOMAS: Indeed, but within that you have the housing benefits issue, the administration of which is devolved to local government, so I would see the water charges as being another example of that. I think what would be important would be to reflect the will of the people of Wales as to how the water charges should be collected, and obviously the Assembly at the moment would have to operate within the constraints of primary legislation on this issue. If there was not a will within whatever department it is, the DTI, I think, then that matter would not be devolved. Within the Local Government Bill now this year we have seen issues where the Minister has not been able to influence the passage of the Bill, and I do not see the issue you have raised as being very different to that unless there was a fundamental change in the devolution settlement.

TED ROWLANDS: That clarifies it. In other words, is it the Committee's wish that it obtains the power by an amendment to the devolution settlement to determine water charging on a different basis from that which might arise in England?

GWENDA THOMAS: Indeed. I would think that is the position, yes.

LORD RICHARD: Can we turn now to scrutiny and how you scrutinise the Minister? We have had a long discussion about the role of the Minister and the policy formulation of your Committee. Tell us a bit about scrutiny. Do you see her once a fortnight?

GWENDA THOMAS: Yes.

LORD RICHARD: And sometimes she puts in written reports?

GWENDA THOMAS: Alternately she puts in a written and an oral report; therefore there is a written report every month.

LORD RICHARD: Can you tell me a bit about the written reports? Are they comprehensive? Long?

GWENDA THOMAS: The report is long and quite comprehensive and, importantly, is circulated beforehand and there is a requirement to do that, so that it is not just tabled on the day of the Committee. I think that gives Members an opportunity to consider how they would want to question the Minister and how effective the scrutiny is.

LORD RICHARD: Is it set out to her what she is doing and all the areas of her responsibilities?

GWENDA THOMAS: Yes, and what she intends to do. She could make announcements on a decision to resource a project; she could make an announcement on a very important policy issue; she could make an announcement directly which is of fundamental importance to local government, but that is done on notice to Members and the scrutiny session is often extended beyond the time allocated to it because it is considered very important.

LORD RICHARD: How much is the time allocated?

GWENDA THOMAS: Half or three quarters of an hour.

LORD RICHARD: Once a fortnight?

GWENDA THOMAS: Yes, and it does take all of that time. There has never been to my recollection a time when the scrutiny of the Minister has ended before the time allocated.

LORD RICHARD: Do members have to give notice to the Minister of what it is they want to raise?

GWENDA THOMAS: No.

LORD RICHARD: So the Minister gives a report in detail to the Committee and then any member of the Committee can raise anything they like on that report?

GWENDA THOMAS: Yes, indeed, or on anything that is not in it that they think should be. That has happened on a few occasions.

PETER PRICE: Do the members sometimes give notice to the Minister so she can research and come back and answer rather more thoroughly than otherwise, or will she say in answer to an impromptu question, "I have not got the information now but I will come back in a fortnight"?

GWENDA THOMAS: Yes, she can do that, and members can give notice and it has happened. Members can give notice to me that they want to question the Minister on a certain issue and will say, "In case it is not in the report I give notice that I want to question the Minister on this or that". That can happen and I could see that as quite proper.

TOM JONES: Beth yw’r broses o roi gwybodaeth i’r cyhoedd ar waith y Pwyllgor? Beth yw’r broses o rannu gwybodaeth â’r cyhoedd? Rydych chi’n paratoi agenda o flaen llaw ac mae gwybodaeth ar y wefan sy’n rhoi cyfle i bobl gysylltu ag aelodau o’r Pwyllgor o flaen llaw. Sut mae hynny’n gweithio? Sawl diwrnod o flaen llaw mae rhaid i’r wybodaeth fod ar y wefan?

Interpretation:

What is the process of giving information to the public on the work of the Committee? What is the process for sharing information with the public? You prepare your agenda beforehand and there is information on the website which gives people an opportunity to contact members of the Committee beforehand. How does that work? How many days beforehand does information have to be on the website?

GWENDA THOMAS: Pum diwrnod cyn y cyfarfod. Ar y mater hwn o wybodaeth dw i ddim yn credu ein bod ni wedi cael unrhyw anawsterau cyhyd ag y galla i gofio â’r Pwyllgor Llywodraeth Leol a Thai, ond mae cwestiwn yma efallai yn ymwneud â’r iaith Gymraeg oherwydd weithiau mewn papurau sy ddim wedi eu cyfeirio at fy Mhwyllgor mae cwestiwn yn codi am argaeledd papurau yn Gymraeg, yn enwedig gan aelodau sy’n paratoi trwy gyfrwng y Gymraeg. Rwy’n paratoi trwy gyfrwng y Saesneg, ond mae rhai’n paratoi trwy gyfrwng y Gymraeg, ac mae hynny wedi achosi pryder weithiau.

Interpretation:

Five days before the meeting. On this issue of information I do not think we have had any difficulties as far as I can remember with the Local Government and Housing Committee, but there is a question here perhaps concerning the Welsh language because sometimes in papers not directed to my Committee a question does arise on the availability of papers in Welsh, especially from members who prepare through the medium of Welsh. I prepare through the medium of English but some prepare through the medium of Welsh, and that has caused some concern at times.

TOM JONES: Ond a fyddai adroddiad y Gweinidog unwaith y mis yn cael ei gyhoeddi ar y wefan?

Interpretation:

But would the Minister's report once a month be published on the website?

GWENDA THOMAS: : Byddai. Caiff adroddiad y Gweinidog ei gyhoeddi ar y wefan ac mae’n rhaid iddo fod ar gael yn yr un ffordd ag unrhyw un arall o bapurau’r Pwyllgor.

Interpretation:

Yes. The Minister's report is published on the website and has to be available just the same as any other papers for the Committee.

LAURA McALLISTER: You say you have few Assembly sponsored public bodies. Are there any that come within your Committee's remit?

GWENDA THOMAS: The Local Government Boundary Commission and the Audit Commission have been called to make presentations to the Committee. The one that we look at annually is the Local Government Boundary Commission, and now the Parliamentary Commission.

LAURA McALLISTER: Can you say a bit about how you have scrutinised those ASPBs? How does it operate?

GWENDA THOMAS: We have had a change of membership, of course, of the Commission and they do make a presentation to Committee and can be questioned on that presentation. There is also beforehand circulated the annual report which contains the accounts of the Commission and that is scrutinised by Committee as well, which happened in the last meeting of the Committee.

PETER PRICE: In the case of the Audit Commission, that could be a tremendous help to you in getting information of an independent but rather thorough kind about how local authorities in Wales are performing. How much do you use the Audit Commission? Do you ask them from time to time to cover certain topics, and what sort of response have you had?

GWENDA THOMAS: I think there has been quite an interaction between the Audit Commission and the Committee. I have been regularly visited by members of the Commission on issues of concern to local government. What has struck me most about the questioning of the Audit Commission or the relationship of the Audit Commission to local government is that it has been made through the Partnership Council. The Local Government Partnership Council has looked in detail at the reports of the Audit Commission and at comparisons that were made, you might recall, between England and Wales where traditionally it was felt that Wales was not performing as well, but the report and the questioning that followed within the Partnership Council gave the light to that and I think that was good for the people of Wales to find out.

Insofar as the Committee is concerned, however, the Audit Commission would attend the Committee at any time to give advice on matters raised and the most recent one was on the issue of rents and the implications of the rental system, and on best value, of course, which has been very important indeed. We have seen growing out of that the policy agreements between Assembly and local government which I think has been quite trailblazing in Wales, and I think that has been a very effective way of ensuring best value. There were very clear targets to meet and the Committee has been considering the effects of the policy agreements.

PETER PRICE: And have you asked the Audit Commission to prepare specific reports?

GWENDA THOMAS: No, we have not.

PETER PRICE: Is that because you have other channels? What is the reason why you have not thought to use them?

GWENDA THOMAS: The Audit Committee, of course, would bring any matters of concern, and we have seen that happening, to a separate Assembly Committee, and yesterday I think we saw the issue of Objective 1. Now I would think that that would touch on the Local Government Committee and I would think that there would be or should be interaction, again, between the different Committees of the Assembly, and I would see it as first feeding through the Audit Committee and then perhaps being referred to Committees.

PETER PRICE: You mentioned the Partnership Council in this context as being very important, and we have heard reference to Partnership Councils in other contexts in the work of the Assembly. Could you explain the composition of this Partnership Council and its remit and how often it meets?

GWENDA THOMAS: It was a statutory obligation that set up the Partnership Council - it was a requirement under the devolution settlement - and the Partnership Council that I serve on is the Local Government Partnership Council which brings in the local authorities, the National Parks authorities, the voluntary sector - although it is not a statutory partner - and the Assembly members who are allocated a place on the Committee. There are six members of the Local Government and Housing Committee on that Partnership Council, it is chaired by Edwina Hart, and it does have a strong presence from the WLGA, who are also represented on that Partnership Council.

PETER PRICE: How often does it meet?

GWENDA THOMAS: Once a term.

PETER PRICE: Three times per annum?

GWENDA THOMAS: Four times a year.

VIVIENNE SUGAR: I would like to ask you a question about how your Committee scrutinises the Minister's budget proposals for spending on local government and housing. Could you explain the process to us, please?

GWENDA THOMAS: We would look, first, at a consideration paper. At that point, then, members could make their views known, make suggestions ----

VIVIENNE SUGAR: At what point in the year?

GWENDA THOMAS: That is in May. That would be followed later on in the year, about July, with the draft budget paper, and then in the autumn by the final paper. That process would be gone through by the Committee during the budget process, because we know that there is a requirement or a wish amongst local authorities to be informed of a budget earlier in the year, and I think that the process within the Committee would accommodate that.

VIVIENNE SUGAR: Do budget proposals get changed?

GWENDA THOMAS: Yes, they have been. Indeed, this year, the views of the Committee, apart from one I think, were all included in the final budget paper.

VIVIENNE SUGAR: You are in a different position to other Committees because the Minister for Local Government and Housing is also the Minister for Finance overall. Is that an issue in the way that the Committee engages with the Minister?

GWENDA THOMAS: No, I do not think it is, because we do not touch on the wider financial powers of the Minister at all. It is only the finance of the local government that we would look at.

LORD RICHARD: When you are doing this budget procedure, do you try and produce a collective view of the Committee which will then negotiate with the Minister first? Is that the way it works?

GWENDA THOMAS: Yes, indeed, and that has happened quite constructively in each year of the process, and at each stage of the process. Also, perhaps, a lot of the most important work is done at the consideration stage, and that is developed then and monitored right through the process.

LORD RICHARD: Do you find difficulties in getting a collective view of the Committee?

GWENDA THOMAS: Surprisingly not.

VIVIENNE SUGAR: Going back to the three recommendations on the housing stock transfer review, did you then reflect that in the budget debate? Did you argue about including the cost of abolishing overhanging debt and so on?

GWENDA THOMAS: Yes, but the point was quite clearly made that the issue of the borrowing powers of local authority is not devolved.

VIVIENNE SUGAR: Were there any other items raised during the budget meetings with the Minister that the Minister was unable to deliver on?

GWENDA THOMAS: No, because the Committee did use the process available to it within the constraints of the settlement.

VIVIENNE SUGAR: So there was nothing that Committee members wanted to see in the local government and housing budget that the Minister was unable to accede to, or deliver?

GWENDA THOMAS: Not that I can think of on the actual budget, but on the issue of hypothecation the Committee was quite unanimous and firm in its view that hypothecation should not enter the consideration of the Minister and should not be considered in Wales, and that became quite clear and was quite firmly put. The Committee attached quite a lot of importance in that it wanted to see the local authorities retaining the power of being able to make decisions locally.

VIVIENNE SUGAR: And what happened? What was the outcome?

GWENDA THOMAS: There will be no hypothecation.

VIVIENNE SUGAR: So any ring-fenced money is going to be abolished?

GWENDA THOMAS: I do not think all of it will be. Within the funds allocated by Barnett I do not think there will be but there can be some ring-fenced money such as what has happened very recently on the safe routes to school, for example, where the money is allocated and ring-fenced for that purpose, but generally the view was that there should not be hypothecation.

TED ROWLANDS: The most complicated set of papers as a Westminster member I recall ever having to deal with were on the original rate support grant or the resource allocation orders from government to local authorities, local government settlement, where we used to have a debate and you would pick up the particular sexy bits of that but on the whole it was not scrutinised because it was almost incomprehensible to an average Westminster member. Do you manage to scrutinise it rather better and more effectively than we did at Westminster, because one of the major issues of the year was fixing and determining each local authority's grant allocation.

GWENDA THOMAS: Indeed. Within the budget report local government settlement has been considered and we have had the situation where we have had transitional relief to the less well-off authorities and the Committee gave consideration to that. We now know that we have a deprivation fund which has added to the base budget, and I would like to think that the Committee's contribution has certainly supported or perhaps even enabled that to happen. Council tax and the fact that it seems in Wales that the worse off authorities have ended up with people paying more in council tax has been, and certainly is, an issue that the Committee has dwelt upon.

TED ROWLANDS: And influenced?

GWENDA THOMAS: I would like to think so, yes. We do know that we have this deprivation grant now added to the base budget which is of fundamental importance because to have this kind of fund, if you like, separate from the rate support grant has been a very important complement to the funding of local government, and has not been confined to certain authorities. It is a Wales-wide fund that will be distributed in accordance with deprivation which is not, in my view, adequately catered for within the formula. So I think it has been a way of complementing the formula.

VIVIENNE SUGAR: Just to make sure that the record is correct, what you are saying is that your Committee supported the Minister's budget proposals for local government and housing and there were no areas of disagreement between you?

GWENDA THOMAS: Not that I would consider to have been major, no.

LORD RICHARD: Thank you very much. On that happy note can I thank you for coming and for speaking up so clearly. It has been extremely helpful and very useful and we have had a look at the way in which the committees operate which we otherwise would not have had.